Ridiculous Simplicity by Peter Jackson

Dear Peter,

reading your essay, I appreciate your idiosyncratic efforts to come up with "ridiculously simple" concepts that explain and unite a number of phenomena in different fields of physics.

But I have trouble to see what your main idea, or main claim, really is. You are listing many detailed facts in several different fields of physics, but it would have helped to build these into a more coherent message or conclusion. For example, you mention 10 axioms on page 4, but you never refer to them later.

Also, I wasn't sure how to interpret your QM section. Are you claiming there to give a local realist model of a singlet state? We know due to Bell that this is impossible. What is the point that you are trying to make with your explanations in these two paragraphs?

Thanks, and best wishes,

Markus

Peter,

You asked: ...(copied to mine)

«I'm interested in why & how the motions of larger bodies further away are assumed to be a different case to smaller closer bodies».

«Surely there aren't two different 'types' of gravity?».

Answer: «there are no two types of gravity».

There is the only remote mechanism in the Universe for forming the force of interaction between the elements of matter, which is realized as a result of the interaction of the de Broglie toroidal gravitational waves at the common frequencies of the parametric resonance (entanglement effect).

This quantum mechanism of gravity is shown in a photo of phenomena observed in outer space (essay 2017) https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2806.

On the photo https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1MvF-AefpMmNWJ2MGJkRmJvR00/ two interacting large bodies are shown which, using a multitude of toroidal gravitational waves, move small elements of Saturn's rings (their moving is an indicator of the action of force between bodies) https://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/resources/4755/?category=images. It should be noted that there are no toroidal gravitational waves directly connecting the bodys. Toroidal gravitational waves interact with each other only at Lagrange points.

Similarly, with the help of toroidal gravitational waves, the Earth and the Moon interact, and the ocean tides are indicators of their interaction

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hzn3q0vZVToxOMVFkwGsRlOxnNeb9OiY/.

Orbital toroidal gravitational waves are formed due to parametric resonance in the medium of the physical vacuum (these are soliton waves), which minimize the force of interaction between bodies in a very rigid superfluid medium of the physical vacuum.

Ie, any force leads to the formation of toroidal gravitational waves aimed at minimizing the force, including minimizing the inertia force. Therefore the force of attraction of the Moon to the Earth is minimized, and the law of gravitation of Newton is unfair for both stars in galaxies and for orbital bodies.

Those. The moon is in orbit in the potential well of gravitational fundamental interaction and is not attracted to the Earth. All fundamental interactions have a potential stability pit as a strong interaction.

For example, no one uses the law of gravitation of Newton to calculate the ephemeris of planets and satellites. It is impossible to explain complex trajectories of the orbital motion of bodies without quantum reformation of toroidal gravitational waves. On a photo of rings of Saturn https://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/system/resources/detail_files/5512_IMG004512.jpg

depicts the principle of the formation of a complex trajectory of the orbital motion of the small bodies of the rings of Saturn under the action of toroidal gravitational waves of two gravitationally interacting satellites of Saturn. And here is showed, complicated moving of the Pioneers https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1MvF-AefpMmVXJfWjF1VF9JaVU/ .

However, the mechanism of minimizing the force with the help of toroidal gravitational waves is not ideal. No ideality is caused by the absorption coefficient in the medium of the physical vacuum (the Hubble parameter).

In order that the Moon does not fall from the orbit, due to the imperfection of the mechanism of minimizing the force of its attraction to the Earth, on the Moon constantly acts the force that pushes the Moon in orbital toroidal gravitational wave with an equivalent speed of 1 km/s (the first cosmic velocity of the Moon). Therefore, on the surface of the Moon, a gravitational potential is formed equal to the square of the equivalent speed of 1 km/s.

A constant force is also acting on the Earth, it pushes forward it on orbit around the Sun by a stream of physical vacuum in a toroidal gravitational wave, with an equivalent velocity of 8 km/s (this was discovered by Michelson and Morley). Accordingly, a gravitational potential equal to the square of the equivalent velocity of 8 km/s (the first cosmic velocity of the Earth) is formed on the Earth's surface.

For example, it was found that the Sun moves relative to the propagation medium of microwave radiation at a speed of 369 km/s. To minimize the resistance force in a rigid environment of physical vacuum, the Sun forms a huge gravisphere, several light-years in size. The force of the deceleration of the sun in the medium of the physical vacuum is determined by the Hubble parameter, as is the anomalous inhibition of the Pioneers and the red shift of the photons. The entire energy of the braking of the solar system is concentrated in the Sun according to the principle of the action of the heat pump. Through the force of deceleration of the Sun, its radiation power is easily calculated.

Thus, one of the most fundamental parameters in the universe is the energy dissipation coefficient (Hubble parameter) in the medium of the physical vacuum, which determines all the parametric processes in the universe. The stars in the Universe are shining, due to the dissipation of photon energy in the medium of the physical vacuum.

You also asked:

«i.e. there's no explicit proof of the 'curved space-time' hypothesis in the LIGO finding. Is that fair?»

Instead of curvature of space-time, there is a derivative of spatial coordinates in time. Equivalent of "'curved space-time" is the variable speed of propagation of gravitational interaction.

For example, on the surface of the Earth, the velocity of propagation of the gravitational interaction is 8 km/s less than at the periphery of the Earth's gravisphere. Therefore, the elements (gravitons) of toroidal gravitational waves (similarly to the coronal loops on the Sun) are accelerated in bodies, when exiting the Earth (or are decelerated in bodies, at the entrance to the Earth). Thus, the reactive force of attraction of bodies is formed.

In the Earth's magnetosphere often occur conversion powerful toroidal gravitational waves. In this case, there are intense https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B1MvF-AefpMmQnJaUXdOTEo4NW8 bursts of electromagnetic radiation over a wide frequency range and recorded the characteristic signals of gravitational waves LIGO project, that unreasonably taken as the signals from the "binary pulsars".

Vladimir Fedorov

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080

Pete,

you are a yachtsman. Your running rigging is laid with a right hand twist of left handed strands. Your sheets are laid left handed of right hand strands, because most people are right handed and will spool a line onto a winch clockwise, and so a left handed lay tails off the winch in fair manner. But both lays are counter-torsional and intended since Xerxes' bridge engineers, to reduce stretch and prevent the strands from untwisting and the fibers from then pulling apart.

So until physicists can agree on a realistic model of what a *photon* IS, a singlet state is an imaginary numerical playmate.

Worm and parcel

with the lay.

Turn and serve

the other way.

Best jrc

Thanks Pete.

Sounds like your channel run was a lot of fun. Congrats!

Yeh, I would flemmish my garden hose, before renting, for fast tangle free drawing. There is a lot of accumulated wisdom in preindustrial arts. And when it comes to deduction of possible physical form at quantum level, I don't think we can discount macroscopic natural forms. I think with caution that we can find transcendence of scale by shapes. I once built a scale model of an architectural design which was a stack of octahedrons with the equilateral face of one module on the horizontal so that the next module reversed the orientation of vertex. It goes 4pi, and gives a triple helix for both hand torsions. I often wonder if that isn't associated with magnetic equilibrium.

The definition of *photon* is so blasted ambiguous that there are very many who immediately say. "Is Not!" But we cannot even say that the Planck Quanta isn't really a composit value of work. If we take e=hf literally, then each photon is a single quanta waveform, and to register any measurable effect it must accumulate to a system value. So intensity becomes confused with rapidity and number. So hey, maybe a photon is really built up of quanta strands, twisted and laid up like a short piece of rope? I think when it comes to scales of macroscopic Bell-Aspect experiments, that might illustrate what we are dealing with. (It's a trick bulb, man! Keep your money off the bar!) Sorry, though. A couple pages to qualify each of 10 axioms is a bit much for my attention span.

But best of luck. I think it axiomatic myself, that for inertia to translate throughout a discrete energy quantity that some parameter must relate to the whole quantity of energy. And if that be density, than a small portion of the total energy existing at a constant density at a c^2 proportion to the total quantity, would quadraticly fit the bill. So a 'charge' quantity could have a center of inertia without having a greatest density that would be inelastic, as would a subluminal particle, if the quantity of energy was small enough. It would still be dense enough to react to magnetic fields orthogonally, and would be less resistant to length contraction and thus more easily accelerated towards c by inductance reactance. So your helical rationales would not lack an inertial center. Best wishes, jrc

Hi Peter,

This is one of the more readable and better-argued "there is no such thing as entanglement" papers I've seen, so that's a plus.

You have way too many ideas for a full assessment, since I'd have to track down a lot of your ideas, many of which are highly non-standard and so would take some time to learn.

I've already provided a quite long set of comments inspired by your notes on your essay, so I'll leave it at that with the above link for anyone interested. You triggered quite a few discussion of related topics, too, so anyone interested in my view on some of these topics can find quite a bit of info on that too at the above link.

Also, I owe you a "thank you!" for inadvertently helping be find a John Bell quote that I had forgotten or skimmed over long ago. Bell's intriguing take on this issue is highly relevant to my own computer modeling argument that you can have a distinguished-frame or even single-frame universe that nonetheless has exactly the same full and beautiful all-frames-are-equal symmetry of "standard" special relativity. Here's the Bell quote, for whatever it's worth:

Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics by John Bell, page 180: "As with relativity before Einstein, there is then a preferred frame in the formulation of the theory ... but it is experimentally indistinguishable20,21,22. It seems an eccentric way to make a world."

Again, thanks for a genuinely intriguing read and argument, and for your generosity in encouraging other essayists!

Cheers,

Terry

Thanks for your comment in my essay.

I rated your's some time ago. After my input, your essay was first place (a 10).

See you next year.

Hodge

Lol I knew that my jumbles of words there were going to imply a reaction , interesting Peter interesting.You don't plagiate, I just say that you mix an ocean of ideas and that in fact it could be well to be more general in considering the DM and DE and this quantum gravitation correctly, but you don't want.It is your choice, good luck and don't forget lol they trun so they are these sphères. Geometrically, spherically, algebrically yours Peter , Jedi of the Sphere :)

Beg your pardon MR. Jackson

As you may know, this contest is almost finished, but I noticed (despite your nice words) that you didn't rate my essay. It is for a particular reason or you just forgot?

Respectfully,

Silviu

Peter Jackson,

Thank you for a great essay. You have obviously thought and explored the thoughts of others a great deal. It's too bad there isn't a suitable forum for exchanging thoughts such as these. It seems that most people go into self-promotion mode which does little to advance community thought.

You seem to be a listener. The community needs more of that balance. I need more of that balance as well. It is not easy to listen. Your evaluation of so many views demonstrates this.

Best wishes to you.

Richard Marker

Hi Peter

I enjoyed reading your essay, it gave me a lot of ideas how nature is functioning and I do agree that "Nature is weird, live with it".

I wish you best luck with your essay in this contest

Regards

Basil